Pages

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

One major problem with the medical care of "obese" patients is that it's often based on what doctors think they know about obesity, rather than being truly evidence-based.

Certain maxims get taught about obesity, it influences medical procedures and protocols, and no one ever questions whether these beliefs are true or whether resulting protocols actually improve outcome.

Often, no one has even researched the question; they just assume outcomes are improved because everyone "knows" this way is best when dealing with fat patients.

More and more we are finding that these assumptions and protocols do not improve outcome, and in fact, sometimes actually worsen outcome.

Cesarean incision type in "obese" women is one of these issues.

Vertical Versus Transverse Incisions: What's Been Taught

Doctors were taught for many years that a vertical (up-and-down) incision was better than a transverse (side-to-side) incision in "morbidly obese" and especially in "super-obese" patients.

They were told that a vertical incision was superior because the area under a fat woman's "apron" or "pannus" (the droopy belly flap overlap that some women have) was hot, moist, and prone to infection. Therefore, to lower the risk for infection, a vertical incision was made to avoid the area under the pannus.

I've seen this maxim repeated over and over in the medical literature throughout the years. And certainly, on my website I have the stories of a number of big moms who were given a vertical cesarean (low vertical or "classical"--i.e. stem to stern) and told it was "necessary" because of their obesity.

Yet to my surprise, until recently, few studies had actually EXAMINED whether a vertical incision actually improved outcomes or not in "obese" women.

Certainly it seems intuitive that avoiding the area under the belly might lower the risk for infection. But interestingly, several studies show the opposite ─ that vertical "up-down" incisions don't improve outcome at all ─ or actually worsen them. And they are certainly far more scarring and unsightly for the women involved.

The Studies That Examine Incisions in Women of Size

Interestingly, there were very few studies on this topic for a very long time; doctors were just taught without question that vertical incisions would reduce the risk of infection and speed up operating time.

Over time, many doctors began using low transverse incisions on women with moderate obesity, and eventually some began expanding their use into women with more "severe" obesity as well. As a result, many women of size did have low transverse incisions, while other doctors kept using vertical incisions on "supersized" women. Yet few people studied which was superior until about 10 years ago.

In 2001, D'Heureux-Jones et al. presented a paper on a small study that compared different combinations of incisions in obese patients. They found that the low transverse (skin and uterine) incision was the best incision for obese women because it was faster and had less morbidity associated with it. Vertical abdominal incisions had the highest blood loss rate. They concluded that a low transverse incision was advantageous "because it improves speed of operation, blood loss, and rate of complications" in obese patients.

In 2003, Wall et al. did a larger study examining this question. They examined the records of 239 women with a BMI of 35 or more. The wound complication rate was 12.1%, or nearly 1 in 8 women of this size. They found that vertical incisions were associated with twelve times the risk for wound complications.

Alanis 2010 found that vertical incisions had greater blood loss in super-obese women (BMI 50+), and they did not improve outcome. Contrary to expectations, they also found that vertical incisions also had increased operative time. To improve outcome in this group, they suggested forgoing surgical drains and promoting low transverse incisions.

Bell et al. (2011) studied 424 women with BMI greater than 35 who had a cesarean between 2004 and 2006, including 41 who had a vertical incision. After adjusting for confounders, the study found that vertical skin incisions were not associated with higher rates of wound complications or blood loss.

However, if the full text of the study is examined, there actually were quite a bit more wound complications (14.6% in the vertical incision group vs. 7.6% in the low transverse group) and blood transfusions (9.8% in the vertical group vs. 1.6% in the low transverse group). These simply did not rise to statistical significance after controlling for confounders. The adjusted odds ratios were 1.91 for wound complication and 2.78 for blood transfusion with vertical incisions, but the confidence intervals were very wide and crossed 1.0, so the results could not be said to be statistically significant. However, the trend towards more complications with a vertical skin incision was very clear. With more subjects in the vertical incision arm, these differences might have risen to statistical significance.

Other Problems with Vertical Incisions

In addition to these concerns, research also indicates that vertical incisions tend to be less strong than transverse incisions, and more prone to dehiscence (coming apart) during recovery.

Women with classical incisions also tend to experience more complications, including post-operative pulmonary issues, more pain, blood transfusions, infections, and more admissions to intensive care units afterwards.

Most importantly, vertical skin incisions often meant vertical incisions in the uterus below. For example, both Bell et al. (2011) and Alanis 2010 found increased rates of vertical/classical incisions in the uterus when vertical skin incisions were used. Bell found that when doctors used a vertical skin incision on obese women, 66% (two-thirds!) went on to use a classical vertical uterine incision too.

A classical vertical uterine incision places these women at strong risk for future complications, particularly uterine rupture, should any more pregnancies occur.

Bakhshi 2010 found that women with a prior classical cesarean had longer hospitalizations, longer operative times, and more admissions to intensive care units in a subsequent pregnancy. Most importantly, they had a greatly increased incidence of scar separations in their pregnancies compared to women with a prior low transverse uterine incision (2.46% vs. 0.27%).

Our results also support the use of Pfannenstiel incisions in obese patients with a large panniculus and contradict classic teaching by veteran surgeons and obstetrical texts. It has been written that transverse abdominal incisions made under the pannicular fold exist in “a warm, moist, anaerobic environment associated with impaired bacteriostasis . . .[that] promotes the proliferation of numerous microorganisms, producing a veritable bacteriologic cesspool.” However, we are unable to locate any evidence to support this popular conclusion...

Transverse abdominal incisions are less painful and allow for earlier mobilization and decreased pulmonary complications. Furthermore, vertical abdominal incisions were associated with vertical hysterotomy in our study, usually a result of inadequate access to the lower uterine segment. When the incision extends into the contractile portion of the uterus, a vertical hysterotomy has a profound impact on future pregnancy. Therefore, it is important to incorporate practices, like transverse abdominal incisions, that facilitate low uterine incisions.

It is notable that the authors could not find any evidence in the research to support the common teaching about use of vertical incisions to prevent infections in obese women. Again, this shows that many maxims that are taught about obesity and pregnancy are not necessarily supported by evidence.

Although some studies have found that outcomes were statistically similar between vertical incisions and low transverse incisions (usually because of too few partcipants), none have shown better outcome with vertical incisions.

Given the lack of data showing vertical incisions to be superior, not to mention the associated post-operative and future risks with them, the question is why these vertical incisions continue to be used in women of size.

Cosmetic Considerations

Furthermore, it must be pointed out that vertical incisions can be very scarring emotionally and physically.

Long-term Results from Low Transverse Incision in a woman of size
photo from website reader

A low transverse incision is not usually terribly visible long after it's healed. Although all scars are annoying to deal with and can have long-term emotional impact, a transverse incision tends to have less long-term psychological impact because it's further down on the abdomen and not nearly as obviously visible.

Although still traumatic to many women, a transverse scar is less mutilating to a woman's general sense of self.

On the other hand, a vertical incision often leaves a line of separated-looking tissue underneath, as demonstrated in the following pictures.

Recent Vertical Incision on a Woman of Size
From pregnancy.about.com

Long-Term Results of a Vertical Incision on a Woman of Size
photo from blog reader

Long-Term Results of Vertical Incision
photo from website reader

Some doctors have the attitude that it "doesn't matter" if an incision is vertical in a fat woman. Some have even told fat women that they gave them a vertical incision because "it's not like you're going to be wearing a bikini."

This is an unjust, callous, and unreasonable reason for imposing a vertical incision. Whether or not they ever wear a bikini is irrelevant to the discussion. It matters to the woman and her partner.

Botched Vertical CS Incision
from makemeheal.com

Women with vertical incisions often complain that their incision "looks like a giant butt" on their frontside, and find it unsexy and humiliating for partners to see. It also can create problems under clothes and limit what fabrics and styles people choose to wear.

Although it's "just" cosmetic, a vertical skin incision can have profound impact on a woman's body esteem. Unless there is a better outcome associated with it, it simply should not be used routinely in women of size.

Conclusion

Although the practice of doing a vertical or classical incision on "very obese" women has declined somewhat over the years, it is still done at times. Some doctors do it because they still believe that it's "safer" and less prone to infection in women of size; some do it because it can be technically and physically difficult to do low transverse incisions on women with a larger belly.

While it is important to acknowledge that it is harder to do cesareans on very fat women, and there can be occasions where alternate incisions become necessary, most of the time low transverse incisions are very do-able in fat women, even "morbidly obese" and "super obese" women.

Our results also support the use of Pfannenstiel incisions in obese patients with a large panniculus and contradict classic teaching by veteran surgeons and obstetrical texts...
Although a Pfannenstiel incision can be challenging in obese patients with an overhanging panniculus, it is usually feasible in all but the most obese women.

Doctors must start questioning the conventional wisdom that they are taught about what's best for "obese" people. They need to find out if this teaching is actually based on real research, and if so, whether the research has adequately controlled for confounding factors.

Once doctors actually started looking into the question, research showed that it is NOT necessary to do vertical incisions in fat women, even "massively obese" women. Outcomes are no better or are actually poorer when vertical incisions are used, despite what many doctors have been taught for so long.

Low transverse incisions have been used successfully even in extremely obese women (BMI of 88) in case reports found in the medical literature. Unless there are other complicating factors to consider, a vertical skin incision should NOT be used routinely in fat women.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the type of skin incision and postoperative wound complications in an obese population.
METHODS: A hospital-based perinatal database was used to identify women with a body mass index (BMI) of greater than 35 undergoing their first cesarean delivery. Hospital and outpatient medical records were reviewed for the following variables: age, insurance status, BMI, gestational age at delivery, birth weight, smoking history, prior abdominal surgery, existing comorbidities, preoperative hematocrit, chorioamnionitis, duration of labor and membrane rupture, dilation at time of cesarean delivery, type of skinand uterine incision, estimated blood loss, operative time, antibiotic prophylaxis, use of subcutaneous drains or sutures, endometritis, and length of stay. The primary outcome variable was any wound complication requiring opening the incision. Multiple logistic regression analysis was completed to determine which of these factors contributed to the incidence of wound complications.
RESULTS: From 1994 to 2000, 239 women with a BMI greater than 35 undergoing a primary cesarean delivery were identified. The overall incidence of wound complications in this group of severely obese patients was 12.1%. Factors associated with wound complications included vertical skin incisions (odds ratio [OR] 12.4, P less than .001)and endometritis (OR 3.4, P = .03). A high preoperative hematocrit was protective (OR .87, P = .03). No other factors were found to impact wound complications.
CONCLUSION: Primary cesarean delivery in the severely obese parturient has a high incidence of wound complications. Our data indicate that a vertical skin incision is associated with a higher rate of wound complications than a transverse incision.

Objective: Cesarean deliveries in obese patients are surgically difficult and associated with a higher incidence of complications. The choices of skin or uterine incision are subjective. Our aim was to determine the impact of different incisions on the speed of the operation and the intraoperative and postoperative morbidity in obese patients.Methods: We conducted a 14-month retrospective review of all primary singleton cesarean deliveries performed at our institution. The abdominal (vertical: V, or Pfannenstiel: P) and uterine incision (low transverse: L, or classical: C) were evaluated by one-way and two-way ANOVA for their impact on the time of delivery (skin–baby) based on maternal weight in obese (>200 lb) versus nonobese women. Measures of intraoperative and postoperative morbidity included EBL, wound infections, and metritis.Results: Seventy-one patients were subjects of this study. Forty-five patients (63%) met criteria for obesity (265.1 ± 8.4 lbs), significantly different from nonobese patients (156.5 ± 4.1 lbs). PL was the most frequent association both in the obese (64%, n = 29) and nonobese (88%, n = 23), with an average skin–baby time of 9.4 ± 0.8 minutes and 9.9 ± 1.1minutes, respectively (P < 0.05). In both obese and nonobese patients, a C was associated with a higher rate of prematurity and NICU admission. When a C was performed, the time was longer if the patient was obese (16.4 ± 2.8 min) versus nonobese (9.07 + 1.2 min), P = 0.03). Skin incisions did not affect the speed of delivery. In obese patients, VL had the highest EBL (1,167 ± 3.57 cc) and PL the lowest (1,075 ± 5.1cc, P = 0.02), both increased compared with nonobese patients with similar incisions. Metritis, but not wound infection, was more frequent in obese patients (20%) versus nonobese patients (3%), irrespective of the incision type. Length of stay was not affected either by obesity or by incision type.Conclusions: The combination of P and L is preferred for cesarean delivery in both obese and nonobese patients. For obese patients, PL is further advantageous because it improves speed of operation, blood loss, and rate of complications.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine predictors of cesarean delivery morbidity associated with massive obesity.
STUDY DESIGN: This was an institutional review board-approved retrospective study of massively obese women (body mass index, greater than/=50 kg/m(2)) undergoing cesarean delivery. Bivariable and multivariable analyses were used to assess the strength of association between wound complication and various predictors.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight of 194 patients (30%) had a wound complication. Most (90%) were wound disruptions, and 86% were diagnosed after hospital discharge (median postoperative day, 8.5; interquartile range, 6-12). Subcutaneous drains and smoking, but not labor or ruptured membranes, were independently associated with wound complication after controlling for various confounders. Vertical abdominal incisions were associated with increased operative time, blood loss, and vertical hysterotomy.
CONCLUSION: Women with a BMI 50 kg/m(2) or greater have a much greater risk for cesarean wound complications than previously reported. Avoidance of subcutaneous drains and increased use of transverse abdominal wall incisions should be considered in massively obese parturients to reduce operative morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in perioperative morbidity and the type of uterine incisions between vertical skin incisions (VSI) and low transverse skin incisions (LTSI) at the time of cesarean delivery in morbidly obese women.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of morbidly obese women (BMI greater than 35 kg/m(2)) who underwent cesarean delivery between June 2004 and December 2006.
RESULTS: During the study, 424 morbidly obese women underwent cesarean section. Patients with VSI were older (31.0 ± 6.2 years vs. 26.7 ± 5.8 years), heavier (48.2 ± 9.1 kg/m(2) vs. 41.7 ± 6.7 kg/m(2)), and more likely to have a classical than a low transverse uterine incision (65.9% vs. 7.3%), p less than 0.001. After controlling for confounders, women with VSI did not have an increase in perioperative morbidity, but underwent more vertical uterine incisions (adjusted odds ratio = 18.49, 95% CI: 6.44, 53.07).
CONCLUSION: VSI and LTSI are safe in morbidly obese patients undergoing cesarean section, but there is a tendency for increased vertical uterine incisions in those who underwent VSI.

We compared maternal and neonatal outcomes following repeat cesarean delivery (CD) of women with a prior classical CD with those with a prior low transverse CD. The Maternal Fetal Medicine Units Network Cesarean Delivery Registry was used to identify women with one previous CD who underwent an elective repeat CD prior to the onset of labor at ≥36 weeks. Outcomes were compared between women with a previous classical CD and those with a prior low transverse CD. Of the 7936 women who met study criteria, 122 had a prior classical CD. Women with a prior classical CD had a higher rate of classical uterine incision at repeat CD (12.73% versus 0.59%; P less than 0.001), had longer total operative time and hospital stay, and had higher intensive care unit admission. Uterine dehiscence was more frequent in women with a prior classical CD (2.46% versus 0.27%, odds ratio 9.35, 95% confidence interval 1.76 to 31.93). After adjusting for confounding factors, there were no statistical differences in major maternal or neonatal morbidities between groups. Uterine dehiscence was present at repeat CD in 2.46% of women with a prior classical CD. However, major maternal morbidities were similar to those with a prior low transverse CD.

Using a grounded theory approach, we explored the experiences of 44 bloggers within the Fatosphere-an online fat-acceptance community. We investigated participants' pathways into the Fatosphere, how they responded to and interacted with stigma, and how they described the impact of fat acceptance on their health and well-being.

The concepts and support associated with the fat-acceptance movement helped participants shift from reactive strategies in responding to stigma (conforming to dominant discourses through weight loss) to proactive responses to resist stigma (reframing "fat" and self-acceptance).

Participants perceived that blogging within the Fatosphere led them to feel more empowered. Participants also described the benefits of belonging to a supportive community, and improvements in their health and well-being. The Fatosphere provides an alternative pathway for obese individuals to counter and cope with weight-based stigma.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

One of the most interesting bits of folk medicine to enjoy a resurgence has been the use of honey for wound healing.

Honey was often used by the ancient Egyptians and Greeks for wound healing. It was used at times in the modern era as well ─ until the mid 20th century. After antibiotics were invented, it went out of common use in Western countries, but was still used to some degree in third-world countries as a folk remedy.

In the last 20 years or so, honey has experienced a resurgence of use, and a number of studies have investigated its utility in wound care. However, at this time, research on honey for wound-care is lagging inside the United States, despite the fact that medical honey dressings were approved by the FDA a few years ago.

It's time that honey for wound care be investigated more thoroughly, both here in the United States and abroad, in various low- and high-resource settings. We need much more data on when and how it is best utilized because it looks like a promising weapon in the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Dressing wounds with honey, a standard practice in past times, went out of fashion when antibiotics came into use. Because antibiotic-resistant bacteria have become a widespread clinical problem, a renaissance in honey use has occurred. Laboratory studies and clinical trials have shown that honey is an effective broad-spectrum antibacterial agent that has no adverse effects on wound tissues. As well as having an antibacterial action, honey also provides rapid autolytic debridement, deodorizes wounds, and stimulates the growth of wound tissues to hasten healing and start the healing process in dormant wounds. Its anti-inflammatory activity rapidly reduces pain, edema, and exudate and minimizes hypertrophic scarring. It also provides a moist healing environment for wound tissues with no risk of maceration of surrounding skin and completely prevents adherence of dressings to the wound bed so no pain or tissue damage is associated with dressing changes. Using appropriate dressing practice overcomes potential messiness and handling problems.

Honey works on several fronts. First, the sugar in it draws out moisture from bacteria in the wound through osmotic action, and this plus the acidity of honey inhibits the growth of bacteria. Second, it draws more lymph fluid into the wound, which speeds healing. Third, the honey forms a barrier to protect the wound from outside infections, and provides a moist environment that helps promote tissue regrowth and minimize scarring. Fourth, it has an enzyme which produces hydrogen peroxide in a dilute form, which helps disinfect the area without damaging the skin the way the commercially-available hydrogen peroxide does. Finally, it keeps bandages from sticking to wounds as they heal, making dressing changes easier and less damaging to skin as it works to heal.

It's likely that there are other ways in which honey helps healing, but these seem to be the main modes of healing that we have figured out so far.

The biggest advantage of honey is that it does not promote antibiotic resistance, and that it's often effective against antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" like MRSA. Honey's most important use currently may be in treating wounds infected with antibiotic-resistant bugs. However, it may be that honey could have an important preventative role before antibiotic-resistant infections ever take hold. Only further research will tell.

Since bees make honey from varying plant sources, different kinds of honey can have different levels of antibacterial effects. In other words, some honeys may be more effective than others.

Research has mostly been done on Manuka Honey (marketed as Medihoney) from New Zealand, which supposedly has greatly increased antibacterial properties compared to many other honeys. However, this company's aggressive marketing has led some to question whether its claim of superiority is more marketing than substance. Tualang honey from Malaysia is also being researched, as well as RS honey (Revamil honey) from The Netherlands; many other honeys from other countries are sure to follow. New Zealand, Germany, and the Netherlands are the countries currently leading the research surge on medical-grade honey.

It's important to note that honey used in research is different from ordinary honey you might get from the supermarket. It's not clear whether research honey is more effective than supermarket honey, but it seems likely. In addition, impurities within honey (and botulism spores) lead some companies to irradiate their honey before marketing it. Therefore, at this time, most authorities do not promote the use of ordinary over-the-counter honey for wound healing. Medical-grade honey is what has been studied.

A Brief Summary of the Research

Research suggests that medical-grade honey is quite effective for improving healing in burn patients. A 2009 meta-analysis of studies found that patients treated with honey had better healing. The authors concluded:

Available evidence indicates markedly greater efficacy of honey compared with alternative dressing treatments for superficial or partial thickness burns, although the limitations of the studies included in the meta-analysis restrict the clinical application of these findings. Further studies are urgently required to determine the role of honey in the management of superficial or partial thickness burns.

However, the use of honey in patients with leg ulcers has been less convincing. Jull 2008 did a randomized clinical trial and found that treatment with honey did not improve healing. On the other hand, Gethin and Cowman (2009) found that honey did have some beneficial effect on desloughing ulcers and minimizing infection.

One problem is that many medical honey trials have been less than rigorous. They often come from only one or two main centers, and frequently are run or funded by companies who produce medical-grade honey. Furthermore, difficulties with study design (use of medical-grade honey vs. ordinary honey, inconsistent antibacterial properties of honey between batches of the same honey, use of honey only after very serious infections are already present) have also limited the clinical application of the findings of existing studies.

Honey may improve healing times in mild to moderate superficial and partial thickness burns compared with some conventional dressings. Honey dressings as an adjuvant to compression do not significantly increase leg ulcer healing at 12 weeks. There is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice in other areas.

In other words, although many results are encouraging, not all are, and many studies weren't well-designed. Larger, more rigorous and more independent trials are needed to determine how and when honey is most effective.

Honey in Childbearing Women

What about the use of honey for healing in childbearing women?

One 1992 study found that honey helped heal infected cesarean wounds within 2 weeks and avoided the need for re-suturing the wound under general anesthesia.

A 1999 study found that in infections after either a cesarean or a hysterectomy, women treated with honey did better than women treated with traditional topical antiseptics (both groups received systemic antibiotics). The healing time in the honey-treated patients was cut in half, women needed far less time on antibiotics, 84% of the honey-treated group experienced complete healing (vs. 50% in the topical antiseptic group), and none of the honey-treated group needed re-suturing (vs. one-fourth of the topical antiseptic group).

The problem with the research on honey for post-cesarean healing is that the studies are extremely small, not very recent, and were done only in third-world countries with more outdated wound-care practices. However, the two studies that exist are encouraging and indicate that the possibility should definitely be tested more rigorously.

Some midwives also use honey for minor perineal tears after birth. Demetria Clark, herbalist, quoting from various sources, explains why honey can be helpful:

Raw honey is a great remedy for first-degree [perineal] tears. Honey's thick consistency forms a barrier defending the wound from outside infections. The moistness allows skin cells to grow without creating a scar, even if a scab has already formed. Meanwhile, the sugars extract dirt and moisture from the wound, which helps prevent bacteria from growing, while the acidity of honey also slows or prevents the growth of many bacteria. An enzyme that bees add to honey reacts with the wound's fluids and breaks down into hydrogen peroxide, a disinfectant. Honey also acts as an anti-inflammatory and pain killer and prevents bandages from sticking to wounds. Laboratory studies have shown that honey has significant antibacterial qualities. Significant clinical observations have demonstrated the effectiveness of honey as a wound healing agent. Glucose converted into hyaluronic acid at the wound surface forms an extracellular matrix that encourages wound healing. Honey is also considered antimicrobial.

In particular, it would be helpful to know if medical-grade honey could help lessen the incidence of wound infection in women of size, who have a higher rate of infection after cesareans or other operations. Or if it could lessen infection in diabetics, who are also quite prone to surgical site infections and poorly-healing skin ulcers.

Yet I have seen some experts recommend against using honey in these groups, on the assumption that it would raise the blood sugar of the patient, and thereby inhibit healing. However, this seems to be just that, an assumption rather than a proven fact, and needs to be tested before such groups are routinely excluded from such potentially promising treatment.

Some authors have also speculated that the high rates of methylglyoxal (MG) in Manuka honey (MediHoney) will impair healing in diabetic ulcers. But again, this theory has not yet been tested.

At this point, I have not seen definitive studies done to test the hypothesis that honey is unsuited for use in either of these groups. Diabetics were routinely excluded from many of the venous leg ulcer studies that were done, and I don't know of any studies done specifically on "obese" people.

However, we do have small studies and case reports of MediHoney being used successfully on diabetics, indigent diabetics with chronic wounds, and in people of size─with promising results─but we need systematic study before we jump to conclusions.

It is unfair to exclude fat people and diabetics from the potentially healing properties of medical-grade honey based on unproven assumptions.

Instead of excluding these populations, studies specifically examining outcomes in these populations should be done, utilizing various brands of medical-grade honey and wound-care protocols. Only then will we know whether exclusions from topical honey dressings is justified or not.

Conclusion

The FDA approved the use of honey for wound dressings in 2007, but U.S.-based research on honey dressings has been slow to catch on, and has been centered mostly on burns and leg ulcers.

Perhaps it's time that its use in other types of wounds, in childbearing women, in diabetics, and in people of size is investigated more thoroughly.

Clearly, we need more information and better studies before we can know just how helpful (or not) medical-grade honey might be.

But given its cost-effectiveness, its potential for lowering antibiotic resistance issues, and the possibility of improving outcome in those with difficult-to-heal wounds, it's a subject that deserves larger and better trials.

*Caution: Honey should not be used for very young children (especially newborns) because it can harbor botulism spores. Therefore many healthcare providers feel medical honey should not be used on anything that might come in contact with newborns either internally or externally (i.e. not for sore nipples or for cord healing after birth).

Honey dressings are well-tolerated by most people who use them, but occasionally a few people report a stinging sensation with their use at first. Those who are allergic to bee stings might also need to use extra caution with medical honey.

Honey has been used to treat wounds throughout the ages. This practice was rooted primarily in tradition and folklore until the late 19th century, when investigators began to characterize its biologic and clinical effects. This overview explores both historic and current insights into honey in its role in wound care. We describe the proposed antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, and physiologic mechanisms of action, and review the clinical evidence of the efficacy of honey in a variety of acute and chronic wound types. We also address additional considerations of safety, quality, and the cost effectiveness of medical-grade honeys. In summary, there is biologic evidence to support the use of honey in modern wound care, and the clinical evidence to date also suggests a benefit. However, further large, well designed, clinical trials are needed to confirm its therapeutic effects.

19 trials (n=2554) were identified that met the inclusion criteria. In acute wounds, three trials evaluated the effect of honey in acute lacerations, abrasions or minor surgical wounds and nine trials evaluated the effect the honey in burns. In chronic wounds two trials evaluated the effect of honey in venous leg ulcers and one trial in pressure ulcers, infected post-operative wounds, and Fournier's gangrene respectively. Two trials recruited people with mixed groups of chronic or acute wounds. The poor quality of most of the trial reports means the results should be interpreted with caution, except in venous leg ulcers. In acute wounds, honey may reduce time to healing compared with some conventional dressings in partial thickness burns (WMD -4.68 days, 95% CI -4.28 to -5.09 days). All the included burns trials have originated from a single centre, which may have impact on replicability. In chronic wounds, honey in addition to compression bandaging does not significantly increase healing in venous leg ulcers (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.38). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of honey compared with other treatments for burns or in other acute or chronic wound types. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey may improve healing times in mild to moderate superficial and partial thickness burns compared with some conventional dressings. Honey dressings as an adjuvant to compression do not significantly increase leg ulcer healing at 12 weeks. There is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice in other areas.

The therapeutic use of honey in wound care has been used since ancient times. Honey has been shown to have antibacterial properties in vitro and animal studies have demonstrated accelerated wound healing with the use of honey. In human trials, there is currently not enough strong evidence to fully support the use of honey in wound care; however, use in minor burns and prevention of radiation mucositis appear to be 2 areas where honey shows therapeutic promise.

This community-based open-label randomized trial allocated people with a venous ulcer to calcium alginate dressings impregnated with manuka honey or usual care. All participants received compression bandaging. The primary outcome was the proportion of ulcers healed after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were: time to healing, change in ulcer area, incidence of infection, costs per healed ulcer, adverse events and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Of 368 participants, 187 were randomized to honey and 181 to usual care. At 12 weeks, 104 ulcers (55.6 per cent) in the honey-treated group and 90 (49.7 per cent) in the usual care group had healed (absolute increase 5.9 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) -4.3 to 15.7) per cent; P = 0.258). Treatment with honey was probably more expensive and associated with more adverse events (relative risk 1.3 (95 per cent c.i. 1.1 to 1.6); P = 0.013). There were no significant differences between the groups for other outcomes.CONCLUSION: Honey-impregnated dressings did not significantly improve venous ulcer healing at 12 weeks compared with usual care.

Comparison of desloughing efficacy after four weeks and healing outcomes after 12 weeks in sloughy venous leg ulcers treated with Manuka honey (Woundcare 18+) vs. standard hydrogel therapy (IntraSite Gel). BACKGROUND: Expert opinion suggests that Manuka honey is effective as a desloughing agent but clinical evidence in the form of a randomised controlled trial is not available. There is a paucity of research which uses Manuka honey in venous ulcers. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre, open label randomised controlled trial. METHOD: Randomisation was via remote telephone. One hundred and eight patients with venous leg ulcers having greater than or =50% wound area covered in slough, not taking antibiotics or immunosuppressant therapy were recruited from vascular centres, acute and community care hospitals and leg ulcer clinics. The efficacy of WoundCare 18+ to deslough the wounds after four weeks and its impact on healing after 12 weeks when compared with IntraSite Gel control was determined. Treatment was applied weekly for four weeks and follow-up was made at week 12. RESULTS: At week 4, mean % reduction in slough was 67% WoundCare 18+ vs. 52.9% IntraSite Gel (p = 0.054). Mean wound area covered in slough reduced to 29% and 43%, respectively (p = 0.065). Median reduction in wound size was 34% vs. 13% (p = 0.001). At 12 weeks, 44% vs. 33% healed (p = 0.037). Wounds having greater than 50% reduction in slough had greater probability of healing at week 12 (95% confidence interval 1.12, 9.7; risk ratio 3.3; p = 0.029). Infection developed in 6 of the WoundCare 18+ group vs. 12 in the IntraSite Gel group. CONCLUSION: The WoundCare 18+ group had increased incidence of healing, effective desloughing and a lower incidence of infection than the control. Manuka honey has therapeutic value and further research is required to examine its use in other wound aetiologies. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study confirms that Manuka honey may be considered by clinicians for use in sloughy venous ulcers. Additionally, effective desloughing significantly improves healing outcomes.

Eight studies with 624 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. The quality of the studies was poor with each study having a Jadad score of 1. Six studies were undertaken by the same investigator. In most studies unprocessed honey covered by sterile gauze was compared with silver sulphadiazine-impregnated gauze. The fixed effects odds ratio for healing at 15 days was 6.1 (95% CI 3.7 to 9.9) in favour of honey having a superior effect. The random effects pooled odds ratio was 6.7 (95% CI 2.8 to 15.8) in favour of honey treatment. The secondary outcome variables all showed significantly greater efficacy for honey treatment. CONCLUSION: Available evidence indicates markedly greater efficacy of honey compared with alternative dressing treatments for superficial or partial thickness burns, although the limitations of the studies included in the meta-analysis restrict the clinical application of these findings. Further studies are urgently required to determine the role of honey in the management of superficial or partial thickness burns.

Dressing wounds with honey, a standard practice in past times, went out of fashion when antibiotics came into use. Because antibiotic-resistant bacteria have become a widespread clinical problem, a renaissance in honey use has occurred. Laboratory studies and clinical trials have shown that honey is an effective broad-spectrum antibacterial agent that has no adverse effects on wound tissues. As well as having an antibacterial action, honey also provides rapid autolytic debridement, deodorizes wounds, and stimulates the growth of wound tissues to hasten healing and start the healing process in dormant wounds. Its anti-inflammatory activity rapidly reduces pain, edema, and exudate and minimizes hypertrophic scarring. It also provides a moist healing environment for wound tissues with no risk of maceration of surrounding skin and completely prevents adherence of dressings to the wound bed so no pain or tissue damage is associated with dressing changes. Using appropriate dressing practice overcomes potential messiness and handling problems.

Honey is increasingly valued for its antibacterial activity, but knowledge regarding the mechanism of action is still incomplete. We assessed the bactericidal activity and mechanism of action of Revamil® source (RS) honey and manuka honey, the sources of two major medical-grade honeys. RS honey killed Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa within 2 hours, whereas manuka honey had such rapid activity only against B. subtilis. After 24 hours of incubation, both honeys killed all tested bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, but manuka honey retained activity up to higher dilutions than RShoney. Bee defensin-1 and H₂O₂ were the major factors involved in rapid bactericidal activity of RS honey. These factors were absent in manuka honey, but this honey contained 44-fold higher concentrations of methylglyoxal than RS honey. Methylglyoxal was a major bactericidal factor in manuka honey, but after neutralization of this compound manuka honey retained bactericidal activity due to several unknown factors. RS and manuka honey have highly distinct compositions of bactericidal factors, resulting in large differences in bactericidal activity.

The possible therapeutic effect of topical crude undiluted honey in the treatment of severe acute postoperative wound infections was studied. Fifty patients having postoperative wound infections following caesarean sections or total abdominal hysterectomies with gram positive or gram negative bacterial infections were allocated in two groups. Twenty-six patients (group A) were treated with 12 hourly application of crude honey and 24 patients (group B) were treated with local antiseptics: spirit (70% Ethanol) and povidone-iodine. Both groups received systemic antibiotics according to culture and sensitivity. Results showed that eradication of bacterial infections was obtained after 6 +/- 1.9 days (mean +/- SD) in group A and after 14.8 +/- 4.2 days in group B (p less than 0.05). Period for antibiotics use was 6.88 +/- 1.7 days in-group A and 15.45 +/- 4. 37 in-group B (p less than 0.05). Complete wound healing was evident after 10. 73 +/- 2.5 days in group A and after 22.04 +/- 7.33 in group B (p less than 0. 05). Size of postoperative scar was 3.62 +/- 1.4 mm after using topical honey and was 8.62 +/- 3.8 mm after local antiseptics (p less than 0. 05). The mean hospital stay was 9.36 +/- 1.8 days in group A and 19. 91 +/- 7.35 days in group B (p less than 0.05). After using honey, 22/26 patients (84.4%) showed complete wound healing without wound disruption or need for re-suturing and only 4 patients showed mild dehiscence. In group B, 12/24 patients (50%) showed complete wound healing and 12 patients showed wound dehiscence, six of them needed re-suturing under general anesthesia. We concluded that topical application of crude undiluted honey could (1) faster eradication of bacterial infections, (2) reduce period of antibiotic use and hospital stay, (3) accelerate wound healing, (4) prevent wound dehiscence and need for re-suturing and (5) result in minimal scar formation.

The usefulness of honey application as an alternative method of managing abdominal wound disruption was assessed. Fifteen patients whose wound disrupted after Caesarean section were treated with honey application and wound approximation by micropore tape instead of the traditional method of wound dressing with subsequent resuturing. We achieved excellent results in all the cases with complete healing within 2 weeks. Honey application is inexpensive, effective and avoids the need to resuture which also requires general anaesthesia.

Because people of all sizes deserve compassionate, gentle, helpful care.

The Well-Rounded Mama Blog

Painting by Mary Cassat, 1844-1926. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

Blog Mission

I write about health for people of size, plus-size pregnancy and birth, pregnancy and childbirth in general, parenting, and Health At Every Size®.

It is time for frank discussion about how fat people are treated in healthcare and how care for this group can be improved. It is also time for some common-sense information, without scare tactics or judgment, about pregnancy in women of size.

About The Author

I am a childbirth educator, writer, and mother to four kids. I also write at www.plus-size-pregnancy.org, and can be emailed at kmom at plus-size-pregnancy dot org.

Disclaimer

This site is written by healthcare consumers for healthcare consumers. The information provided here is not intended as medical advice. Consult your personal healthcare providers when deciding how to use this information.